Kønsroller - deres og vores

Diverse — Drokles on March 16, 2012 at 3:07 pm

Fra BT (set via Uriasposten)

Når du trykker hende i hånden, reciterer hun to suraer fra den hellige koran, som hun bagefter gentager på engelsk.

På den måde opnår små børn i alderen +3 ’viden og forståelse om verden’, som der står bag på den lyserøde pakke, der følger med Aasmina.

Fastholder piger i kønsrollemønster

Ifølge kønsforsker ved Roskilde Universitetscenter Karen Sjørup er dukken - ligesom andre dukker - med til at fastholde piger i et bestemt kønsrollemønster.

- Det er en lidt absurd dukke. Normalt har dukker til formål at lære piger at blive mødre. Den her siger så koranvers i stedet for ’mama’, og er sikkert beregnet til at få børn til at blive muslimer. Jeg tror dog ikke den virker efter hensigten, for børn i tre-års alderen forholder sig ikke til, hvad der kommer ud af munden på dukken, siger Karen Sjørup.

Hun mener heller ikke, at dukken vil have den store indflydelse på, om muslimske piger vælger at gå med tørklæde, når de kommer i puberteten.

Det er altså ifølge disse banebrydende nye ideer om socialisering ligegyldigt, hvad man siger til børn. En tilsvarende Hitlerdukke udspyende Mein Kampf citater til drenge vil kun være problematisk så langt at den fastholder drenge i et bestemt kønsrollemønster. Vi glæder os til at se den muslimske pull-string actionman til drengene, som kun råber Allahu Akbar.

Indoktrinering af totalitære ideer tror “vi” altså ikke virker efter hensigten, men kønsroller, se det er en anden og langt mere bekymrende sag, som en anden historie fortæller i Politiken. Dagligvarekæden Kvickly sælger nemlig fastelavnstønder, der enten er lyserøde eller lyseblå

Og det møder kritik, fordi det adskiller kønnene i stedet for at samle dem.

»Det er da klar logik«, siger Henrik Vilsbøll, der blandt andet er pædagogisk konsulent for skoler og daginstitutioner.

»Og det er lige så klart, at pigerne vil stille sig op i køen foran den lyserøde tønde, og drengene foran den lyseblå. Men jeg synes, der er en tendens i tiden til, at vi bruger meget mere energi på at lære drenge og piger at lege hver for sig fremfor at lege sammen«, siger han.

Man kunne sikker roligt lade tønderne sige citere Breivik - nå nej, men koranen da - problemet er at de lærer børn at slå.

Og for nu at blive i tidens tanker så kan man ligeledes ifølge artiklen fra Politiken læse følgende på Kvickly’s hjemmeside

I Kvickly har du frihed til at vælge med omtanke for dig og dine – og den verden vi alle er en del af.Når vi tænker omtanke tænker vi: - Økologi/miljø - Sundhed - Klima - Etisk handel.

Det er en hel lille bispens-gips-gebis-spiritusprøve: “Når vi tænker omtanke tænker vi”. To religioner støder sammen. Den ene aner ikke at den selv er en religion og er derfor blind for religiøse kræfter. Den anden er målbevidst og morderisk.

Religionen kropsdyrkelse møder klimareligionen

Diverse — Drokles on March 15, 2012 at 6:31 pm

Det starter i Jyllands-Posten, som kan fortælle noget du måske ikke vidste om din kost

Den globale fedmeepidemi kan skyldes, at de stigende mængder CO2 i luften påvirker vores hjerner, så vi får lyst at spise mere.

Denne vilde, men forjættende hypotese fremsættes for første gang af seriøse danske forskere. Passer det, så ødelægger CO2 ikke bare klimaet, men også den globale sundhed.

Man holder vejret i åndløs spænding. Men fedme er ikke blot en effekt af CO2, CO2-forskyldt fedme er en positiv feed-back effekt, som The Daily News Egypt fortæller

An increase in the use of jet fuel is not just a matter of financial cost; it also implies an environmental cost, as higher greenhouse-gas emissions exacerbate global warming. It is a minor example of how the size of our fellow-citizens affects us all. When people get larger and heavier, fewer of them fit onto a bus or train, which increases the costs of public transport.

Men en løsning kan være lige for kan man heldigvis læse i The Atlantic

however smart our technologies become, the human body has its own ecological footprint, and there are more of them than ever before. So, some scholars are asking, what if we could engineer human beings to be more energy efficient?

(…)

For instance, the paper suggests that parents could make use of genetic engineering or hormone therapy in order to birth smaller, less resource-intensive children.

Med bemærkningen om at jeg allerede har en klimavenlig pik vil jeg blot ønske denne nye religion alt godt fremover.

SF diskuterer den rette børneopdragelse

Diverse — Drokles on March 14, 2012 at 9:26 pm

Socialistisk Folkeparti har gjort sig utilbens med sine socialistiske rødder. I et forslag til det nye principprogram hedder ifølge Information det bl.a.

»Enhver myndig borger har pligt til så vidt muligt at forsørge sig selv, at overholde landets love, betale sin fastlagte skat, udvise respekt over for andre mennesker og for fællesskaberne samt opdrage sine børn til at opfylde disse pligter.«

Kritikkerne i SF mener som Peter Westerman at det er “kammet over i noget, som er alt for formynderisk“. “børneopdragelse hører ikke hjemme i et principprogram” istemmer Trine Perthou Mach. Det lyder jo umiddelbart godt, som meget der kommer fra det parti, hvis man ingen hjerne har. Det må ikke blive alt for formynderisk, vel, der er alligevel en grænse, hvor folk selv er bedst til at afgøre, hvad der er bedst ik’? Men en grænse for Socialistisk Folkepartis hang til formynderi er alligevel svær at forstille sig givet deres begær efter at bestemme, hvad vi skal spise, at vi ikke må ryge, hvilke positioner vi tisser og boller i, hvor mange kvinder der skal være i forhold til mænd i enhver sammenhæng (minus dem som kvinder ikke kan lide) og i denne sammenhæng ikke mindst, hvor meget barsel man(d) skal holde.

Så mon ikke den instinktive reaktion fra SF’erne Westerman og Mach ikke handler så meget om grænsen for statens magt, men snarere om at uviljen mod at opretholde landets love, besudlet som de er, mere af folket end socialismen? - Det er det store bagland af sympatisører for de mange afskygninger af Bedsteforældre Mod Lands Lov og Ret, Christiania, SUF and their myrmidons man er bange for at støde fra sig. Jeg er sikker på at med tilføjelsen “med mindre loven kan tolkes asocial, pikket, racistisk efter den ubegrænsede definition af ordet eller at den på nogen måde gavner driftige og selvtænkende mennesker!” ville Westerman og Mach bifalde det højlydt.

Fukushima et år efter

Diverse — Drokles on March 14, 2012 at 7:41 pm

Der Spiegel skriver om Merkels dalende engagement i lukningen af den tyske atomenergi industri

One year later, the images of Fukushima have faded from people’s minds. And the further the disaster recedes into the past, the less decisive the German government gets. Granted, the coalition of Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU), its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), and the business-friendly Free Democratic Party (FDP) passed an extensive package of legislation last summer. But, since then, little has happened, and the initial momentum has given way to inertia.

Indeed, too many questions still remain unresolved, whether they concern the expansion of the national power grid, the construction of new gas-fired power plants, the increase in the proportion of electricity derived from renewable energy sources or the search for a place to store spent nuclear fuel. Efforts aimed at altering where Germany gets its energy from have gotten bogged down, the players within the coalition government have tied themselves in knots over who is responsible, and no one seems to be steering the ship of state toward the nuclear-free horizon. Germany’s grand and ambitious aim of transforming itself into a bastion of green energy is now in jeopardy — and, with it, the largest and most important project of Merkel’s chancellorship besides the euro-rescue efforts.

Rob Lyons gør status i Spiked-Online

Not a single person has died because of exposure to radiation as a result of the Fukushima accident, though two plant workers did die in a flooded basement room as a direct result of the tsunami. But lesson four is that overreaction to a problem can be worse than the original problem. For example, it was reported that 45 patients died after the botched and hurried evacuation of a hospital in the Fukushima prefecture, and this was not the only such case. One centenarian committed suicide rather than be forced from his home in the exclusion zone.

Most of Japan’s nuclear-power plants were shut down for testing after the accident or kept offline after maintenance for longer than expected. A country with hot summers like Japan has become reliant on air conditioning. With power supplies reduced, more people seemed to be affected by heatstroke. In July, it was reported that 26 people had died from heatstroke in the spring and early summer, compared to six people the year before. These may not all have been down to the problems caused by the nuclear shutdown, but it can’t have helped that people were being constantly nagged to reduce their power usage. Ironically, two workers at the plant, wearing very heavy protective suits to protect them against the radiation, died from heatstroke.

As for the people who were evacuated, their lives have been turned upside down. A survey of the members of one village showed that many have drastically reduced incomes, they have often been separated from the rest of their extended families, they face uncertainty about the future and even harbour nagging concerns about radiation and cancer. The result is that some have turned to drinking and smoking more, raising their risk of illness from these, more prosaic factors. The risks of returning to their homes and rebuilding their old lives would seem to be much lower.

For Japan to turn against nuclear power is, perhaps, understandable. For Western nations to do so is perverse.

Europæiske politikere og medier støtter helt ukritisk perversionens falske præmis.

Lotte Heise og de virkeligt klamme

Diverse — Drokles on March 14, 2012 at 4:19 pm

I et indlæg i JP Aarhus argumenterer Lotte Heise for hendes støtte til en demonstration for tolerance. Lotte Heise siger at hendes tolerance stammer fra hendes gode opvækst, hvor man i skolen skulle se den “uhyggelige sort-hvide dokumentarfilm fra ghettoen i Warszawa“, som gav lille Lotte “mareridt om de stakkels mennesker“. Hendes “onkel havde været frihedskæmper“, hendes “enormt seje mormor havde gemt jøder i kælderen” og da “Martin Luther King blev dræbt i 1968, græd min mor højlydt” (eller måske demonstrativt?). Derfor konkluderer Heise: “Så tolerance har altid været en stor del af mit verdensbillede“. Lotte Heise bruger kun 473 ord på at fortælle hvor god og ydmyg hun er på en og samme gang. Det synes jeg er flot og for det skal hun have tak. Men jeg bliver alligevel forvirret. Heise er bekymret over en demonstration ugen efter, indkaldt af Danish Defence League mod “uhyrligheder begået af muslimer i islams navn og under dække af sharialov. En ideologi, som vi er meget imod, som ikke hører hjemme eller passer ind i europæisk kultur

Jeg synes simpelthen, at det er så mega klamt, at mennesket igen og igen i et eller andet ynkeligt forsøg på at skabe et fællesskab sætter sig over andre og gør sig selv bedre end dem.

Ordene her stammer dog ikke, som man jo skulle tro, fra Danish Defence League og deres syn på islamisk supremachisme med deres dyrkelses af rent og urent, halal og haram og jøderne skal have hovederne slået af og sår’n. Ordene stammer fra Heise selv med hendes anti-totalitære opvækst, hendes seje mormor med kælderjøderne, frihedskæmpende onkel og hendes mors tårer. Heises er nemlig så god at hun kan deltage i en demonstration i flok med andre der ligesom hende er bedre end Danish Defence League - for de er da for urene, jeg mener klamme.

Nissen flytter med

Diverse — Drokles on March 13, 2012 at 7:38 pm

Hvis man lukker alle fra etniske konflikter ind i sit land lukker man også alle deres etniske konflikter ind i sit land. Om et brandattentat på en moske i belgien, hvor den lokale imam døde oplyser BBC

One witness was quoted by Belgian media as saying that the man had shouted several times about Syria.

Around 100 people had gathered behind a police cordon around the Rida mosque - the largest Shia mosque in Brussels. Some were chanting Shia slogans, others crying, hugging or praying, the AFP news agency reports.

(…)

“It seemed that this person showed up and pulled out a knife and an axe, and that he spread flammable products, petrol we assume, in order to start a fire and threaten the people attending the mosque.”

One other person was lightly injured, Mr Meilleur said.

It is not yet clear why the man attacked the mosque, but some local people said he was a “Salafist”.

Ifølge Jyllands-Posten fordømmer indenrigsministere “på det skarpeste og med indignation” attentatet. og borgmesteren opfordrer til at folk bevarer roen.

“lysten til at eksperimentere forsvinder”

Diverse — Drokles on March 13, 2012 at 6:40 pm

Berlingske Tidende fortæller at danskerne ikke længere vil have øremærket barsel, ordningen, hvor far skal tage sin tørn af det forbandede uvæsen som børn er. Således udlægges problemet, for det er et problem at danskerne ikke kan hvad der er godt for dem selv, fra cremen af akademia

Professor i arbejdsmarked Henning Jørgensen, Aalborg Universitet, betegner forandringen som et »dramatisk holdningsskift« med anker i den økonomiske krise.

»Men holdningerne repræsenterer også to meget forskellige perioder. Folk var positive, før krisen satte ind. Nu er vi i en krisesituation, og den krisebevidsthed vender op og ned på mange prioriteringer. Den sociale forståelse daler, og lysten til at eksperimentere forsvinder, fordi det handler om den basale overlevelse,« fortæller professoren.

De læste rigtigt, der står “professoren” og ikke “SF’eren”. Krisen skærper måske mere forståelsen af at nødvendighed hører den enkelte families konkrete situation til. Derved falder ikke lysten til at eksperimentere, men til at være et eksperiment.

Fakegate - et søm i klimakisten

Diverse — Drokles on March 12, 2012 at 12:54 pm

Der har udspillet sig en bizar sag mellem modpolerne i klimadebatten i den seneste måneds tid. Den estimerede klimaforsker Peter Glick, der sideløbende med dommedagsprofetier kraftigt har slået til lyd for videnskabelig etik kunne pludselig afsløre slibrige detaljer om en af benægterfløjens kerneinstitutioner, The Heartland Institute, som var blevet ham tilsendt af en “Heartland Insider”. En whistleblowers moralske habitus giver ubetalelig tyngde til enhver afsløring. Gennem fortrolige dokumenter blev både Heartlands finansiering og målsætning rullet op og til ingens overraskelse var det den fossile industri, sammen med andre skurkagtige kapitalister der købte sig ind på Heartlands plan om at forkludre klimadebatten og videnskaben som sådan. Historien spredte sig hurtigere end nogle kunne nå at fact-tjekke dokumenterne - lige indtil altså, at nogle gjorde. Og så gik det stærkt den anden vej.

Det viste sig ikke bare at dokumenterne ikke var fra en Hertland insider, men var fremskaffet af Glieck selv på en ikke særlig videnskabsetisk måde. Glieck havde udgivet sig for et medlem af Heartlands bestyrelse, identitetstyveri, for at opdage at Heartlands finansiering var ganske beskeden, ikke ulovlig, ikke hemmelig, men faktisk ganske uskummel. For hele den umiddelbare bestyrtelse hvilede alene på et enkelt dokument, det nu berygtede “stategi-memo”, som var en fabrikation - og endda en dårlig en af slagsen. Og mon ikke dette forfalskede strategimemo stammer fra Gliecks egen hånd?

Heartland leverer det bedste samlede modstykke til FN’s Klimapanels fortælling, men med et budget på på 4-5 mill. $, hvoraf kun en del er afsat til klimadebatten er Heartland økonomisk en dværg i klimadebatten. EUReferendum sammenlignede Heartlands budget med, hvad der regnes for moderat på den modsatte side af klimadebatten

The Climate Works Foundation, though, is of special interest as it was in 2008, awarded $460,800,000 from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, a grant-making organisation with assets of $7.2 billion, which disbursed $353,400,000 in grants in 2011. It has made another grant to Climate Works only last week of $100 million – bringing the total grants to this organisation to just short of $600 million.

Eksemplerne på økomastodonter og deres statslige opbakning er mange og man kan med fornøjelig gru læse flere hos EURerendum. Judith Curry har bl.a derfor undret sig over, hvorfor Heartland af alle benægtere blev et mål for bagvaskelsesattentatet og meget aktuelt spurgt Heartlands chef Peter Bast, som pr. email bl.a svarede

We send publications to every national, state, and 8,400 county and local officials in the U.S. on average about once a week. 79% of state legislators say they read at least one of our publications. “Environment & Climate News,” one of six monthly publications we produce, is read by 57% of state legislators, a higher percentage than read the New York Times. It has been published continuously for 15 years, and every issue features the work of leading climate realists. No other organization produces a regular publication that reaches more people with this message.

Many policymakers and other opinion leaders in the U.S. and around the world recognize the names of (to use those in your list) Pat Michael, Chris Horner, Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, Richard Lindzen, and Roy Spencer only because they read their work or about their work in Environment & Climate News.

ECN is just the tip of the iceberg. You know about our International Conferences on Climate Change (ICCCs) – six held since 2008, total attendance of more than 3,000 people. The press and online coverage of these conferences was greater than anything else done by climate realists, and the videos of the presentations posted online have been viewed hundreds of thousands of times. The personal connections created among scientists from all around the world created a genuine social movement in favor of a more realistic understanding of climate change.

(…)

In addition, we’ve distributed more than a million DVDs, nearly 2 million short booklets and reprints, and 200,000 copies of a New York Times best-seller. Most were sent to educators, opinion leaders, and policymakers over the course of the past five years. We deliberately bypassed the mainstream media, for reasons made obvious by their coverage of the Fakegate scandal. Our strategy worked. All surveys show informed opinion has moved decidedly in the direction of climate realism and away from alarmism.

Heartland er altså gode til at advokere for sin sag ved hårdt benarbejde, rene argumenter og i åben kamp. Heartlands konferencer er ikke kun for de indviede også fortalere for det herskende paradigme inviteres med selv om de oftest udebliver. Efterhånden har nogle dog taget mod til sig, som ovennævnte Judith Curry og har fundet om end ikke enighed så en behagelig, saglig og fagligt berigende debat. Peter Glieck var endda var inviteret til åben debat på Heartlands konference, men takkede nej dagen før han bestemte sig for at forfalske Heartlands motiver! Han har senere forklaret sit attentat på Heartlands renomme med at han forivrede sig i forsøget på at højne debatten. Ironisk nok for Peter Glieck er efter sigende manden som for ti år siden opfandt sætningen “debatten er ovre!

Gliecks karriere ligger nu i ruiner og i den spillevende klimadebat deler skeptikerne lystigt håndmadder ud til rå mængder af røde ører. Denne absurde sag er altså mere end en enkelt mands momentane galskab og en enkeltstående ydmygelse af klimasagen - det er et afgørende punkt i klimadebatten. Det mener jeg fordi Fakegate, som sagen hurtigt blev døbt, er så pinlig for så mange betydningsfulde forskere og meningsagenter, som opretholder det samlede klimaparnas at det er katastrofalt for parnassets i forvejen slidte renomme - og det renomme er med virkelighedens manglende samarbejdsvilje parnassets sidste argument. Tag dette nylige eksempel fra LA Times anmeldelse  af Ishockeystavgrafens skaber Michael Mann’s seneste bog (Mann vender jeg tilbage til)

As of January, the Earth’s atmosphere contained 393 parts per million of carbon dioxide. And rising.

To understand why that’s a very sad number, it helps to know that from the dawn of human civilization until the 19th century, the concentration was about 275 parts per million, and that many scientists believe 350 parts per million is a sort of tipping point: Irreversible impacts and feedback loops start to kick in, and the cost of repairing the resulting damage from such things as sea-level rise and droughts not only skyrockets, the cost of adapting to the changes does too. But we’ve already sailed past that point. And , the truly scary level at which 3.5 degrees of warming above pre-industrial global average temperatures is locked in. The predicted result: centuries of weather extremes, drought-fueled global famine, mass migration, the vanishing of low-lying islands and territories as sea ice melts away, wide-scale species extinction and other horrors too numerous and depressing to list.

To global warming denialists, the above paragraph constitutes the “alarmist” perspective on climate change. Never mind that it is backed by a wealth of research, the world’s most state-of-the-art climate models (whose accuracy in predicting the recent effects of climate change has been repeatedly demonstrated), the national science academies of the world’s developed nations (including the U.S. National Academies), the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, among other prominent academic and scientific organizations.

Kun tåber går op imod så imposant prominens. Men, men, men. Påstanden om at klimaet allerede har passeret et ‘tipping point’ komplet med ’feedback loops’ står uagtet de mange fine institutioners opbakning svagt i lyset af at temperaturen ikke er steget i 15 år. Noget må altså have modvirket CO2 effekten med stigende styrke i samme tidsrum. Men alle naturlige noget er allerede udelukket gennem analyser af de bedste klimamodeller milliardbeløb kan købe og det kan enhver tåbe se er problematisk. Clive Best har f.eks denne graf, som sammenstiller Klimapanelets virkelighedsopfattelse, hvor “we’re heading inexorably toward another one that’s far worse: 450 parts per million” med den virkelige verden

ipcc-20071

Så argumentet hviler alene på de centrale institutioners allerede tyndslidte renomme. Fakegate’s betydning er at det afslører niveauet og anatomien af klimaparnassets på alle måder dårlige dømmekraft og i tillæg en moralsk som politisk skruppelløshed. Og det er en katastrofal skade på den troværdighed der er deres sidste våben i kampen, som vi skal se. Den ellers klimavenligt stemte Megan Mcardle skrev tro mod sin journalistiske træning i The Atlantic hurtigt om sin mistanke om ugler i mosen da afsløringen af Heartlands arbejdspapirer blev nyhedsstof

Heartland denied that the “strategy memo” was theirs.  And after reading through it–and the documents–carefully, I was inclined to believe them; the text was all wrong, and while the other documents had been printed to PDF sometime in January, this one had been scanned into a computer less than one day before it was sent to the climate bloggers.  While some journalists argued that all the checkable facts in the memos were backed up by the other documents that Heartland admitted to sending, to me, that merely suggested that it was written by someone who had those documents in their possession.

Endnu hurtigere var Steven Mosher, som havde bemærket at det falske memo’s sprog var ganske mistænkeligt af flere årsager. Det adskilte sig ikke bare klart fra Heartlands egne skribenters normale sprogbrug med et barnligt skurkesprog, som i sætningen “key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science” - det passede som fod i hose på Gliecks eget sprog, komplet med specifikke grammatiske fejl (en af grundende til at jeg holder mig på dydens smalle sti). Her er, hvad han smed som en foreløbig kommentar i et kommentarfelt

If you want to look for the author of the fake memo, then look for somebody who tweets the word “anti-climate”. you’ll find it. Look for somebody on the west coast ( the time zone the document was scanned in)

You’ll find somebody who doesnt know how to use parenthesis or commas, both in this memo and in other things he has written.

you’ll find he mentions himself in the memo

that’s all the clues for now. of course its all just speculation. Note, he’s not tweeted for a couple days. very rare for him.

Sammenhold med at det forfalskede dokument var blevet til på baggrund af det uforfalskede materiale, som Glieck var den eneste udenfor Heartland der var i besidelse af. Og læg mærke til, hvor let det er for Mosher ikke bare at se forfalskningen, men hurtigt at stille med en kandidat, mens klimaparnassets mest prominente aktører villigt lod sig forføre. New York Times havde f.eks. under overskriften “Leak Offers Glimpse of Campaign Against Climate Science” følgende vurdering af strategimemoets ægthed

Heartland did declare one two-page document to be a forgery, although its tone and content closely matched that of other documents that the group did not dispute.

Som jeg refererede ovenfor så skilte det falske dokument sig på alle måder ud fra det ulovligt rekvirerede materiale og matchede ikke i tone og indhold de andre dokumenter. Et mildt ord for New York Times stykke research er “confirmation bias”, det at man søger bekræftelse for sin tro. Og det New York Times her tror bekræftet er altså en paranoid forestilling om oliefinansierede konspirationer mod videnskaben til menneskehedens store fortrydelse. Men det har pinligt intet med sandheden at gøre. Den mastodont, som de ser true deres fortælling er intet andet end en undseelig tænketank kun bevæbnet med saglig interesse og gode argumenter - Kan en god sag være bange for det?

BBC’s miljøskribent Richard Black havde kun sympati for Gliecks handlinger og resonnerede således

As the old saying goes, “news is something that someone somewhere doesn’t want you to know” - and here was information about a significant player in climate politics that it certainly didn’t want you to have.

In saying one of the documents was a fake, the institute also signified that the rest were genuine.

Ja, det er rigtigt at Heartland på den måde inddirekte bekræftede de andre dokumenters ægthed (og senere blev de direkte bekræftet da Heartland ganske fornuftigt havde sikre sig at der ikke var manipuleret med dem). Men ved at forfalske et dokument udtrykker man også at de ægte dokumenter ikke indeholder noget belastende. Og dette er jo netop den åbenlyse pointe som BBCs Black overser! Man havde selv ved bedrag ikke kunnet afsløre noget som helst sinistert. Forfalskningen udtrykker netop, hvor stærkt argumenterne imod FN’ Klimapanels forløjede konsensusteori er - og derfor også, hvor svagt klimabevægelsen ikke blot står, men også føler sig. Derfor måtte en bizar ondskab fabrikeres og tilsættes for at forklare, hvorledes det kan gå til at de forkerte vinder en debat om rationaler.

Også Time leverede et forvrænget billede af virkeligheden da de indledte deres referat af sagen således

For advocates of climate action, the Heartland documents offered a rare glimpse into the world of the conservative power players who work to cast doubt on climate science and delay action on global warming — the same people authors Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway called the “Merchants of Doubt” in their 2010 book by the same name.

Saglig debat forveksles med økonomisk overlegenhed - et budget, som end ikke kunne betale huslejen for Geenpeace’s frivillige medarbejdere ses som en “power player”. Dog skal det retfærdigvis med kunne Time se at løgne ikke er vejen frem for noget konstruktivt. Det havde de sværere ved hos Guardian. Guardians fremtrædende klimakommentator George Monbiot sprang lige ud i det og erklærede

I see Peter Gleick, the man who obtained and leaked the devastating documents from the Heartland Institute, as a democratic hero. I do not think he should have apologised, nor do I believe that his job should be threatened. He has done something of benefit to society.

Det er, må man nok sige, den slags udtalelser som slider på troværdigheden når man sammenholder at Glieck gennem amoralsk adfærd har afsløret at Heartland har rent mel i deres meget lille pose. Eller, hvad med dette filosofiske spørgsmål fra økoetikeren James Barvey i samme Guardian

Are his actions wrong just because he lied?

(…)

You can see where I’m headed. Gleick’s intentions matter when we try to work out whether he was wrong to lie. It’s worth noticing that he wasn’t lying for personal gain. What resonates for me, though, are the consequences of his action. If Gleick frustrates the efforts of Heartland, isn’t his lie justified by the good that it does?

Når man stiller sig selv et så ledende spørgsmål er det nemt at svare på især hvis man er fascist

What Heartland is doing is harmful, because it gets in the way of public consensus and action.

Så er der vel ikke mere man sige. Jo, hvis man hedder Mann, en af hovedpersonerne fra Climategate, de lækkede emails, som afslørede urent trav hos klimapanelets centrale eksperter. Mann var sammen med sine emailkammerater (lidt for) hurtigt ude med en fordømmelse af Heartland Institute i et åbent brev

The Heartland Institute has chosen to undermine public understanding of basic scientific facts and personally attack climate researchers rather than engage in a civil debate about climate change policy options.

These are the facts: Climate change is occurring. Human activity is the primary cause of recent climate change. Climate change is already disrupting many human and natural systems. The more heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions that go into the atmosphere, the more severe those disruptions will become. Major scientific assessments from the Royal Society, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, United States Global Change Research Program and other authoritative sources agree on these points.

What businesses, policymakers, advocacy groups and citizens choose to do in response to those facts should be informed by the science. But those decisions are also necessarily informed by economic, ethical, ideological, and other considerations.While the Heartland Institute is entitled to its views on policy, we object to its practice of spreading misinformation about climate research and personally attacking climate scientists to further its goals.

We hope the Heartland Institute will begin to play a more constructive role in the policy debate. Refraining from misleading attacks on climate science and climate researchers would be a welcome first step toward having an honest, fact-based debate about the policy responses to climate change.

At argumentere ud fra autoritet kræver autoritet og med dette utidige udfald af dårlig dømmekraft undergraver FN’s centraleste af centrale klimaforskere endnu engang deres autoritet. Attentatet mod Heartlands troværdighed, som selfølgelig skulle smitte af på selve klimatvivlen blev hurtigt sammenlignet med den lækkede emailkorrespondence fra East Anglia universitetets klimaenhed, den såkaldte climategate. Climategate var et stort nederlag for klimabevægelsen fordi den afslørede uhæderlighed i kernen af klimaforskningen og underminerede ideen om et videnskabeligt konsensus og dets krav på respekt. Men modsat hensigten med at bringe balance i regnskabet ved at hænge Heartland ud i en tilsvarende afsløring af fordækthed er “Fakegate” blot en bekræftelse af den tvivl, som Climategate efterlod  - klimabevægelsen er politisk og pilrådden. Uhæderligheden taler et tydeligt sprog om at argumenterne er tørret ud, som kun bliver forstærket af flokmentalitetens larmende demonstration af inkompetence og villighed. Det værste er ikke at svindel og manipulation klæber til deres side af debatten, men at de i nær samlet flok ikke kan skelne mellem det virkelige og det åbenlyst uvirkelige, at de ikke kan se hvor løgnene begynder og slutter, at de på alle planer ikke kan skelne mellem rigtigt og forkert.

Hidtil er det lykkedes at benægte naturens uvilje mod at spille med på konsensusteoriens diktater ved at henvise til at debatten er ovre fordi vi siger den er ovre. Med Fakegate er “vi”’s troværdighed knust og journalister vil nu igen driste sig til at rette mikrofonerne mod naturen og spørge hvorledes den egentlig reagerer på alt dette hurlumhej. Og naturen vil svare “Jeg gør som det passer mig!” Titanic sank ikke så hurtigt som en kåd jæger i vaders og fortællingen om den udiskuterbare globale opvarmning vil fortsætte en rum tid endnu. Mange et budget og mangen en karriere er stadig afhænig af at bølgen fortsat ruller. Men troværdigheden, som hele argumentet om konsensus hviler på, er endeligt udhulet.

“De ville slå mig ihjel”

Diverse — Drokles on March 11, 2012 at 9:28 am

Jyllands-Posten har en ganske glimrende kommentar om noget så sjældent i islamdebatten som de, der konverterer væk fra islam og til kristendommen.

Lynkursus i mangfoldighed

Diverse — Drokles on March 10, 2012 at 10:29 pm

Fra Al Arabiya News

Iraqi activists sounded the bell over the killing of dozens of teenagers by religious police for having “emo” haircuts.

Activists told the Cairo-based al-Akhbar daily that at least 90 Iraqi teenagers with “emo” appearances have been stoned to death by the Moral Police in the country in the past month. The violent crackdown against “emo” Iraqi teenagers came after the Iraqi interior ministry declared them as “devil worshippers.”

“The ‘Emo phenomenon’ or devil worshiping is being probed by the Moral Police who have the approval to eliminate it as soon as possible since it’s detrimentally affecting the society and becoming a danger,” a statement by the Interior Ministry said.

Nogen burde tage noter.

Fordrivelsen af kristne i Mellemøsten

Diverse — Drokles on March 9, 2012 at 10:51 pm

Israels ambassadør i USA Michael Oren gør i Wall Street Journal status over de kristnes situation i Mellemøsten

The church in Bethlehem had survived more than 1,000 years, through wars and conquests, but its future now seemed in jeopardy. Spray-painted all over its ancient stone walls were the Arabic letters for Hamas. The year was 1994 and the city was about to pass from Israeli to Palestinian control. I was meeting with the church’s clergy as an Israeli government adviser on inter-religious affairs. They were despondent but too frightened to file a complaint. The same Hamas thugs who had desecrated their sanctuary were liable to take their lives.

The trauma of those priests is now commonplace among Middle Eastern Christians. Their share of the region’s population has plunged from 20% a century ago to less than 5% today and falling. In Egypt, 200,000 Coptic Christians fled their homes last year after beatings and massacres by Muslim extremist mobs. Since 2003, 70 Iraqi churches have been burned and nearly a thousand Christians killed in Baghdad alone, causing more than half of this million-member community to flee. Conversion to Christianity is a capital offense in Iran, where last month Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani was sentenced to death. Saudi Arabia outlaws private Christian prayer.

As 800,000 Jews were once expelled from Arab countries, so are Christians being forced from lands they’ve inhabited for centuries.

The only place in the Middle East where Christians aren’t endangered but flourishing is Israel. Since Israel’s founding in 1948, its Christian communities (including Russian and Greek Orthodox, Catholics, Armenians and Protestants) have expanded more than 1,000%.

Den kan anbefales at læse i sin helhed

De renes land

Diverse — Drokles on March 8, 2012 at 1:11 am

Daily Mail skriver om at en lov i Pakistan der skal hæve den kriminelle lavalder fra 7 til 12 bliver blokeret af myndighederne ud fra en påstand om at varmen og den stærke pakistanske mad gør børnene tidligere voksne i Pakistan. Det er jo alt sammen ganske underholdende og så pludselig skrives der så henkastet

The bill - which was drafted three years ago - would also make child pornography, child trafficking and sexual abuse illegal for the first time.

Ja det er jo værd at tage med. Men for de rene er vel alting rent.

Klimaeksperternes økonomiske sans

Diverse — Drokles on March 7, 2012 at 3:18 am

I et svar til 16 videnskabsmænds bekymring over klimaforskningens elendige forfatning skriver klimaforskeren Kevin Trentberth og 37 andre i Wall Street Journal hvorfor man fortsat skal stole på deres forudsigelser uagtet hvordan naturen ter sig

Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.

Eksperter er eksperter på deres felt og eksperter udenfor dette felt ved ikke nok lyder argumentet i al sin enkelhed. At klima ikke er andet en anvendt fysik og at videnskabelige regler skal overholdes uanset, hvilket felt man har kastet sin kærlighed på vil jeg ikke dvæle ved - og heller ikke et ord om doktor Jørgen Ege. Men med ekspertdokter analogien in mente kan jeg ikke lade være at studse over Trentberth og 37 andres afsluttende udsagn

In addition, there is very clear evidence that investing in the transition to a low-carbon economy will not only allow the world to avoid the worst risks of climate change, but could also drive decades of economic growth. Just what the doctor ordered.

Så doktoren er nu blevet økonom. Men jeg ville nu ikke konsultere ham om investeringer, hvis man skal tro Matt Ridley i The Spectator

To the nearest whole number, the percentage of the world’s energy that comes from wind turbines today is: zero. Despite the regressive subsidy (pushing pensioners into fuel poverty while improving the wine cellars of grand estates), despite tearing rural communities apart, killing jobs, despoiling views, erecting pylons, felling forests, killing bats and eagles, causing industrial accidents, clogging motorways, polluting lakes in Inner Mongolia with the toxic and radioactive tailings from refining neodymium, a ton of which is in the average turbine — despite all this, the total energy generated each day by wind has yet to reach half a per cent worldwide.  

If wind power was going to work, it would have done so by now. The people of Britain see this quite clearly, though politicians are often wilfully deaf. The good news though is that if you look closely, you can see David Cameron’s government coming to its senses about the whole fiasco. The biggest investors in offshore wind — Mitsubishi, Gamesa and Siemens — are starting to worry that the government’s heart is not in wind energy any more. Vestas, which has plans for a factory in Kent, wants reassurance from the Prime Minister that there is the political will to put up turbines before it builds its factory.

This forces a decision from Cameron — will he reassure the turbine magnates that he plans to keep subsidising wind energy, or will he retreat? The political wind has certainly changed direction. George Osborne is dead set against wind farms, because it has become all too clear to him how much they cost. The Chancellor’s team quietly encouraged MPs to sign a letter to No. 10 a few weeks ago saying that ‘in these financially straitened times, we think it is unwise to make consumers pay, through taxpayer subsidy, for inefficient and intermittent energy production that typifies onshore wind turbines’.

Putting the things offshore may avoid objections from the neighbours, but (Chancellor, beware!) it makes even less sense, because it costs you and me — the taxpayers — double. I have it on good authority from a marine engineer that keeping wind turbines upright in the gravel, tides and storms of the North Sea for 25 years is a near hopeless quest, so the repair bill is going to be horrific and the output disappointing. Already the grouting in the foundations of hundreds of turbines off Kent, Denmark and the Dogger Bank has failed, necessitating costly repairs.

Bob Dylan tog altså fejl; svaret blæser ikke i vinden.

Det er helt forfærdeligt

Diverse — Drokles on March 6, 2012 at 11:52 pm

Ind imellem kommer der nogle lattervækkende eksempler på hvor meget en politisk elite og deres politisk korrekte medløbere lever i en anden verden end os andre rettænkende borgere. Et sådan eksempel kan man læse i Politiken

Nicolas Sarkozy selv advarede på et valgmøde i weekenden mod at give ikke EU-borgere stemmeret ved lokalvalg i Frankrig, og hans indenrigsminister, Claude Guéant, gik endnu videre.

»Vi vil ikke have, at udenlandske byrådsmedlemmer gør halalkød obligatorisk i de måltider, der serveres i kantinerne«, sagde han med henvisning til skolernes kantiner.

Disse udtalelser er blevet mødt med en strøm af protester.

»Det er helt forfærdeligt«, lyder det fra centrumpartiet Modems præsidentkandidat, François Bayrou, der peger på vigtigere sager som arbejdsløsheden og den voksende fattigdom.

Det er ikke bare forfærdeligt, det kan faktisk ikke blive værre.

Slutspil for klimaet (Groundbroken Science II)

Diverse — Drokles on March 6, 2012 at 11:50 pm

I slutningen af Januar skrev 16 videnskabsmænd et indlæg til Wall Street Journal, hvor de gjorde op med påstanden om at der er et videnskabeligt konsensus om klimaet. Det affødte selvfølgelig en del reaktioner fra andre videnskabsmænd, som forfægtede konsensus og nu har de 16 svaret - igen i Wall Street Journal

In this respect, an important gauge of scientific expertise is the ability to make successful predictions. When predictions fail, we say the theory is “falsified” and we should look for the reasons for the failure. Shown in the nearby graph is the measured annual temperature of the earth since 1989, just before the first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Also shown are the projections of the likely increase of temperature, as published in the Summaries of each of the four IPCC reports, the first in the year 1990 and the last in the year 2007.

These projections were based on IPCC computer models of how increased atmospheric CO2 should warm the earth. Some of the models predict higher or lower rates of warming, but the projections shown in the graph and their extensions into the distant future are the basis of most studies of environmental effects and mitigation policy options. Year-to-year fluctuations and discrepancies are unimportant; longer-term trends are significant.

billede-311

From the graph it appears that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth’s temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.

The Trenberth letter tells us that “computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean.” The ARGO system of diving buoys is providing increasingly reliable data on the temperature of the upper layers of the ocean, where much of any heat from global warming must reside. But much like the surface temperature shown in the graph, the heat content of the upper layers of the world’s oceans is not increasing nearly as fast as IPCC models predict, perhaps not increasing at all. Why should we now believe exaggerating IPCC models that tell us of “missing heat” hiding in the one place where it cannot yet be reliably measured—the deep ocean?

Given this dubious track record of prediction, it is entirely reasonable to ask for a second opinion.

(..)

The continued efforts of the climate establishment to eliminate “extreme views” can acquire a seriously threatening nature when efforts are directed at silencing scientific opposition. In our op-ed we mentioned the campaign circa 2003 to have Dr. Chris de Freitas removed not only from his position as editor of the journal Climate Research, but from his university job as well. Much of that campaign is documented in Climategate emails, where one of the signatories of the Trenberth et al. letter writes: “I believe that a boycott against publishing, reviewing for, or even citing articles from Climate Research [then edited by Dr. de Freitas] is certainly warranted, but perhaps the minimum action that should be taken.”

Or consider the resignation last year of Wolfgang Wagner, editor-in-chief of the journal Remote Sensing. In a fulsome resignation editorial eerily reminiscent of past recantations by political and religious heretics, Mr. Wagner confessed to his “sin” of publishing a properly peer-reviewed paper by University of Alabama scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell containing the finding that IPCC models exaggerate the warming caused by increasing CO2.

Det ligner mere end blot en kritik af af en videnskabelig tese. Det ligner beskyldninger, som No Tricks Zone godt tør sætte ord på

Deliberately ignoring the major natural factors while wildly exaggerating another, despite the volumes of data out there, has been going on in the IPCC models for years now. We’ve seen the culture of deception in the Hockey Stick, Al Gore’s exaggerated AIT, Climategate, Hansen’s adjustments and just recently with the behavior of Peter Gleick. With every passing year, scientists have noticed the widening deviation between their models and reality, yet they continue to ignore the major factors of sun, oceans and soot, and they manipulate the models even more to make CO2 appear as the culprit.

This systematic fudging and manipulation of models is increasingly fitting the definitions of criminal fraud. Unless the IPCC changes its course and starts acknowledging the sun, oceans and soot in its models in its next report, then the public will have grounds to sue them for fraud in a class action suit. The sheer weight of the data showing that the sun, oceans, etc. have considerable impacts is overwelming and can no longer be ignored in good faith.

A society the feels defrauded needs to start taking the legal steps to begin moving the case forward. It can be argued that the line between wrong science and fraud science was crossed long ago and that the hand of justice needs to intervene.

Der er altid en regning, der skal betales, som vismanden Indurain gjorde rede for.

Syriske læger torterer deres patienter

Diverse — Drokles on March 6, 2012 at 10:16 pm

Fra Channel Four

I det mindste har vi nu en ide om, hvor mange grusomheder der skal til for at sætte venstrefløjens Israelkritik, som deres antisemitisme kaldes i daglig tale, på pause.

Hvis de nu tager fejl…

Diverse — Drokles on March 3, 2012 at 1:20 pm

Fysikeren Mike Stopa skrev forleden et godt indlæg, hvor han spekulerer over, hvordan historien vil se på teorien om menneskeskabt global opvarmning

Suppose it turns out that CO2 has essentially nothing to do with the earth’s climate. How will the history of this colossal mistake be written?

They will say that a mechanism called the “greenhouse effect,” was postulated long ago (~1824 by Joseph Fourier) and gained adherents in the late 20th century. They will say that the theory was seemingly invalidated by the decrease in global temperatures from 1940-1975, but that the adherents patched this up by explaining the cooling with pollution, specifically sulfur, from industry

They will say that the theory was challenged by the noted vast gap between the amount of CO2 produced by civilization and the substantially smaller increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, but that the theory was patched up by examining the increased CO2 uptake by the hydrosphere and the biosphere.

They will say the theory was seemingly invalidated by the evidence that the atmosphere was already nearly opaque in the wavelengths that are absorbed by CO2 and so the additional CO2 could have, on its own, little effect, but that the theory was patched up by positing a feedback mechanism between the small temperature increases directly due to CO2 and the production of water vapor which is the main greenhouse gas.

They will note that the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) proceeded much like any scientific theory (cf. Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) in that it was modified and patched up and adjusted to fit empirical challenges until it finally collapsed altogether under the weight of incontrovertible evidence. But, the scientific historians will have a new phenomenon to consider, and that is the social and political context of this particular scientific theory.

Simon Carr har hørt en forelæsning af den skeptiske klimaforsker Richard Lindzen og er begyndt at tvivle på om påstanden om menneskeskabt global opvarmning nu også er robust. Fra The Independent

How to explain the procession of eminent opinion leaders – some even in our own Royal Society – who advance the tenets of catastrophic global warming? “It is science in the service of politics,” he said.

If Lindzen is right, we will never be able to calculate the trillions that have been spent on the advice of “scientists in the service of politics”.

Måske ikke, men nogle tal kan vi dog smide på bordet

The European Commission’s proposal for the EU’s next Multiannual Financial Framework, covering the period 2014-20, marks a major step forward in climate mainstreaming because it builds climate change considerations into the big spending areas and key sectors of the EU budget.

This will accelerate Europe’s transition to a climate-friendly, energy- and resource-efficient society. “I believe the EU will be the first in the world to mainstream climate action into its whole budget” if the proposal is accepted, Connie Hedegaard said. “This moves the fight against climate change into a new phase. The Commission has set an example here.”

The proposed budget, presented on 29 June 2011, totals roughly €1,000bn for 2014-2020 and raises the share of climate-related spending to at least 20%, more than three times the current level.

20% af 1.000 mia. euro er lig med mange, mange penge.

Hustruvold

Diverse — Drokles on March 3, 2012 at 9:58 am

En Gunnar Langemark skriver på 180 Grader

Det er IKKE sandt at mænd slår kvinder og det er heller ikke sandt at ægtemænd slår deres hustruer. Lad os se på de undersøgelser der findes.

Den erklærede feminist (yes!) og underviser på kønsstudier - Warren Farrell - fortæller i sin bog “does feminism discriminate against men?” om hvordan han næppe troede sine egne øjne og øren, da han så en række af undersøgelser, der viste at kvinder slår deres mænd mindst lige så meget som omvendt. Han fortæller også om hvordan en række af de undersøgelser der viste dette uventede resultat, rent faktisk var udført af feminister - som forventede at modbevise den første undersøgelse der blev gennemført i USA i 1975 - der var gennemført at Steinmetz, Straus og Gelles ( refereret senere her.).

Resultatet af TALRIGE veldokumenterede undersøgelser viste over tre årtier - at resultatet var korrekt. Ikke at der ikke var forvirring. Der var masser af forskellige tal i omløb og masser af forvirring. En del af forvirringen kan man få udredet her.

Men det helt generelle - og overvældende overbevisende resultat var, at kvinder slår deres ægtemænd lige så meget som mænd slår deres hustruer. Dette kan overraske når man tænker på - at vi også “ved” at vi lever i et såkaldt patriarkalsk samfund - også i vores kulturkreds. Et samfund der traditionelt har satmanden højere end kvinden - og givet manden ret til at “revse” sin hustru, i kraft af at han var herre i huset. Denne ret blev afskaffet her i landet for under 100 år siden.

Resten af artiklen kan læses med interesse. I samme tråd lægger en læser følgende lettere indignerede video

De sidste billeder med den ophidsede kvinde der angriber sin kæreste i en park stammer fra denne skjult kamera opsætning. Med frygt for at lyde gammeldags er jeg dog nødt til at skyde ind at de to eksempler ikke kan sammenlignes da manden altid qua sin gudsgivne fysiske overlegenhed vil have valget at sætte en stopper for hendes urimeligheder (med mindre han hedder Stephen Hawkin selvfølgelig). Sandheden skal frem for sandhedens egen skyld og ikke for at flæbagtiggøre mænd til at opfatte sig som ofre. Så i stedet vil jeg have Satoshi Kanazawa på banen, så er her et uddrag fra hans forklaring på, hvorfor den moderne feminisme er en ulykke.

It is also not true that women are the “weaker sex.”  Pinker documents the fact that boys are much more fragile, both physically and psychologically, than girls and hence require greater medical and psychiatric care.  Men succumb to a larger number of diseases in much greater numbers than women do throughout their lives.  The greater susceptibility of boys and men to diseases explains why more boys die in childhood and fail to reach sexual maturity and why men’s average life expectancy is shorter than women’s.  This, incidentally, is the reason why slightly more boys than girls are born – 105 boys to 100 girls – so that there will be roughly 100 boys to 100 girls when they reach puberty.

Another fallacy on which modern feminism is based is that men have more power than women.  Among mammals, the female always has more power than the male, and humans are no exception.  It is true that, in all human societies, men largely control all the money, politics, and prestige.  They do, because they have to, in order to impress women.  Women don’t control these resources, because they don’t have to.  What do women control?  Men.

Det afliver om ikke andet historien om de store fortællingers død. Fortællingen om mandens arvesynd lever i bedste velgående og danner rammen om vores forståelse af verden (jeg har selv lige revideret mit syn på dele af islam).

« Previous Page

no prescription buy viagra
Monokultur kører på WordPress